CityHallWatch: Tools to engage in Vancouver city decisionshttps://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com
Speak the truth. Expect the truth.Thu, 25 Jul 2019 01:38:48 +0000en
hourly
1 http://wordpress.com/https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/3c45e558987b1710902810a1fac63da0?s=96&d=https%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.pngCityHallWatch: Tools to engage in Vancouver city decisionshttps://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com
Heads up on Procedure Bylaw changes: On July 24, City Council is set to change meeting rules and limit public participation (Outcome: POSTPONED)https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/procedure-bylaw-changes/
https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/procedure-bylaw-changes/#commentsTue, 23 Jul 2019 06:02:14 +0000http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/?p=55373Epilogue first: Council reached consensus to POSTPONE th

e amendment of this bylaw. Minutes of the meeting will likely be online within a couple days.

(Update: The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods has submitted a letter to Council opposing the proposed amendments and pointing out numerous issues that need to be addressed. See list added to bottom of this post.) City Staff seek to exert more control over Vancouver City Hall by changing the rules of Council meetings, just as the city embarks upon a four year process to develop a City-wide Plan. The text of proposed changes was just made public a few days ago.

Just a few of the important changes being proposed include …

cutting the time members of the public are permitted to speak at committee meetings from 5 minutes down to 3 minutes

limiting the scope of discussions

increasing the lead time required for Councillors to bring forward motions

(Conversely, staff want to be allowed to continue to bringing forward reports to Council at the last minute, without warning.)

We encourage people to get familiar with this and let City Council know your views immediately. Watch for updates – we will provide more info by Twitter and in this post.

In addition to the above points, this report also contains proposed changes …

to keep video archives of Council meetings online for only four years

strengthen the power of the meeting Chair

ban applause from the gallery

explicitly empower the City Manager to comment on all advisory committee reports to Council.

prohibit the public from questioning or challenging statements by city staff on issues in staff reports to Council or general comments by staff

permit electronic meetings by Council, although the proposal has no restrictions on what could be discussed our decided, or how the public will be able to scrutinize their elected officials’ deliberations, or how Council will be accountable to the public (e.g., broadcast live and recorded for later viewing)

City Council members would have to submit motions on notice two meetings prior (to being put on the agenda, not one as it is now); also motions introduced in Council would not be heard the next meeting (but rather two meetings down the road)

There are other concerns not covered in this post, still being identified.

The report is submitted to Council in the name of the City Clerk, and unsurprisingly, “the City Manager is recommending that Council adopt the changes.”

An ominous implication regarding the timing is that Vancouver is setting forth upon a four-year process to create a City-wide Plan. Is the stage being set to reduce the public’s rightful voice in the planning process and increase the power of the staff and those who can influence them?

In 2012 CityHallWatch reported extensively on changes to this Bylaw brought in under the then Vision Vancouver regime at City Hall. Another attempt on the Procedures Bylaw was about to be made but abandoned just prior to the October 2018 civic election. It appears this new attempt to curtail the public voice and empower staff is a revival of the wheels set in motion then. The end of July is a strategic time for getting changes through Council with minimal public attention. We have seen this pattern before – for example with Vancouver’s Regional Context Statement under the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy.

Time is short. But it is now very important for Vancouver citizens to pay attention, read up, and speak out to your elected officials. Once changed, the rules of engagement between the you the citizens and your elected officials could tilt further away from you.

Our currently-sitting members of Council should treat this matter with extreme caution and think long term. If this goes the wrong way, they could end up playing a part in the long-term erosion of democratic principles in our municipal government. The next civic election is in 2022 and the composition of Council will always change in the next election and every subsequent four years. Without careful consideration, checks and balances, rules our current Council puts in place could end up being abused, even if they think the changes might be innocuous now. These proposals were developed and proposed by staff without any meaningful public input. Council members have had very little time to review them and consult more broadly with citizens. They would be wise to do so.

Many of the proposed amendments are anti-democratic by reducing the relationship between elected officials and the electors they are responsible to represent. For example, the text proposes that:

Council members’ motions require 2 meetings advance notice (4 weeks). This is much longer than the current bylaw which requires only 1 week, or the current pilot of 1 meeting notice (2 weeks). (9.1, 9.3)

Meanwhile, there is no change to current practices of last minute staff reports and Council agendas, which should be required 2 weeks in advance of the Council meeting. (3.3)

Only one speaker or representative per organization be allowed. This ignores the fact that individuals within an organization may personally have different issues or concerns. (7.5)

Councillor’s questions to speakers cannot be leading to allow speakers more time. (7.7)

The proposed new pilot program would not allow Councillors questions to speakers at all.

Speakers’ time reduced from 5 minutes to 3 minutes and groups from 8 min. to 5 min. when the report states that the majority of the public did not support this change. ( 7.5, 7.7,13.18)

Moving of Councillors’ motion are only allowed to be 2 minutes, when speakers get 3 minutes, and restrictions on Councillors citing their preamble. (9.6)

Public hearing agendas are proposed to only be made public 3 business days before the hearing. It should be posted at least 2 weeks before the hearing. (13.7)

Electronic meetings are proposed to be allowed for special Council meetings and In-Camera meetings. There are concerns that this is premature, especially regarding public participation and for what kind of issues would be allowed in special Council meetings. (Part 14,14.2)

Special Council meetings have no definitions and can be initiated by the Mayor without a Council vote. (Definitions, 2.5)

Councillor’s motions are being redefined as a referral report that doesn’t allow speakers from the public.

A new definition of improper conduct has been added that could result in Councillors being removed from the meeting. It also poses restrictions on the public, advisory committee members, and councillors from being critical of the city or staff policy, programs or practices. This could be in conflict with the Vancouver Charter as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Definitions, 4.4(e), 7.8)

It removes the pilot of 3 pm hard start at Council committee to hear from speakers on Councillor’s motions that was to make speaking times more predictable for the public.

Bylaw circulation to Council doesn’t require links to reports or red line copy showing changes. (10.1)

The bylaw should restore the deleted clause that restricts a Councillor who has been absent from an entire public hearing from voting. (former 18.27 to be added as 13.26)

The expanded role of City Manager to comment on advisory committee reports undermines the independence of advisory committees. (15.15)

There are many issues that require clarifying language regarding: public hearings and meetings in general election year should be restricted until the new council turnover not just to election day; the recording of meetings and clarification of archived videos being easily accessible online; the public’s rights to record public meetings; the processes related to requests by the public to speak; limits on reconsideration of an adopted motion; authenticating of public comments; and more. (2.3, 2.9, 3.14, 7.3, 8.6, 8.14, 13.11)

]]>https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/procedure-bylaw-changes/feed/2urbaniztaCOV council consensus to postone Procedural Bylaw amendment 24-Jul-2019Council discusses Clr Swanson motion (Expanding Downtown Eastside Greenspace and Waterfront Access) to support Crab Parkhttps://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2019/07/10/swanson-motion-dtes-greenspace-waterfront-crab-park/
https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2019/07/10/swanson-motion-dtes-greenspace-waterfront-crab-park/#respondWed, 10 Jul 2019 21:36:43 +0000http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/?p=55363[Update: Council adopted an amended version of the motion. Click on the Council agenda within a couple days for the meeting minutes, containing the approved text.]

At the Standing Committee on City Finance and Services meeting on June 26 and 27, 2019, due to time constraints, the Committee referred the following motion to the Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities meeting on July 10, 2019, to hear from speakers.

Submitted by: Councillor Swanson

WHEREAS

On May 27, 2018, the Vancouver Park Board unanimously approved an amended motion requesting that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority identifies further opportunities to make investments in the local Downtown Eastside community with a particular focus on parks, recreation, and Reconciliation, and that the Park Board explore the initiation of a working group in partnership with the City of Vancouver and community stakeholders with a goal to transition the development and construction of an indigenous-focused healing, wellness, and/or cultural centre out of the theoretical and into action and reality;

In 2015, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority announced the Centerm Expansion Project, which involves a series of improvements at the Centerm container terminal, including extending the terminal to the west;

On April 18, 2018, a project permit was approved for the Centerm Expansion Project;

On June 20, 2018, City Council approved recommendations for staff to continue to work with community, health sector, foundation and government partners to plan for the development and operation of an Indigenous Healing and Wellness Centre in the Downtown Eastside;

Waterfront spaces are critically important both culturally and ecologically to the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations, and every opportunity should be sought to partner with them on the potential of such spaces;

Based on the City’s support of the Park Board’s park provision targets, the Downtown Eastside is park deficient and would benefit from the addition of greenspace;

Community members have expressed an interest for an indigenous healing centre/arts and cultural centre in CRAB Park;

The Port Authority has stated its commitment to being a good neighbour to local communities, municipalities and First Nations, and to demonstrating this commitment through its investments in those communities.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED

A. THAT Vancouver City Council requests the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority identifies further opportunities to make investments in the local community with a particular focus on parks, recreation, and Reconciliation, and to engage with the City, Park Board, Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations, and Urban Indigenous communities on future planning processes and opportunities for the Central Waterfront area, including CRAB Park, that would support:i. vulnerable populations in the Downtown Eastside through equitable access to expanded, high quality greenspace;ii. improving community access to existing parks and greenspace;iii. exploring the feasibility of a new indigenous healing centre or cultural centre at CRAB Park;iv. creating and enhancing significant shoreline habitat; andv. the city-wide focus of expanding waterfront park access.

B. THAT the Vancouver City Council support and assist in funding the development and construction of an indigenous-focused healing, wellness, and/or cultural centre at CRAB Park.

C. THAT Vancouver City Council works in collaboration with the federal Minister of Transportation, the local Member of Parliament, the local Member of the Legislative Assembly, the Park Board, and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to achieve points i-v of Part A above.
* * * * *

Park board to hear motion urging Port Authority to invest in the DTES by enlarging, enhancing Crab Park as part of port expansion: Commissioner John Irwin wants to know how big of an impact the expansion of the port will have on the Downtown Eastside and the green space adjacent to the port (Vancouver Sun, Gordon McIntyre, May 13, 2019)

GWAC has assembled a panel of experts to speak to their first hand knowledge of everything you may want to know & definitely need to know before committing to infill housing.

​Richard Bell LLC, a lawyer, will speak to the legal aspects; Jake Fry, of Smallworks, who co-founded Small Housing BC, will speak to the challenges & opportunities of laneway housing, as well as the ins & outs of development from the contractor’s perspective; Matt Henry, realtor, will describe how one can market a laneway house; as well Dan & Felicia Cooper, who are in process of tangling with the City for approvals for a laneway house in Hastings Sunrise, will describe their experience seeking those permits and more.
​
GWAC has also invited some occupants of local laneway houses to share their experience of living in infill housing.

As a free public service CityHallWatch takes a separate monthly snapshot of the Rezoning Applications and Development Applications listed on the City of Vancouver website. The rezoning list contains valuable information on each application, and indicates scheduled “open houses” and Public Hearings. The development list shows applications currently in progress as well as upcoming Development Permit Board meetings. Spread the word to anyone who might be affected or interested.

Development Application Information Web Page

Welcome! The City is committed to making sure neighbours of development proposals are as informed as possible about proposed developments and that they have opportunities to provide input. This new method serves to notify people about development applications, in a way that is more sustainable and cost-effective.

Development Permit application information is listed below by address. Simply search for the application you are interested in and click on the link for more information.

As a free public service CityHallWatch takes a monthly snapshot of the Rezoning Applications listed on the City of Vancouver website. The list contains valuable information on each application, and indicates scheduled “open houses” and Public Hearings. Spread the word to anyone who might be affected or interested.

Lab tests done last month confirmed the presence of lead on synthetic turf playing fields at Trillium Park and VanTech Secondary School in Vancouver. Vancouver residents Kathy Lau and Peter Nicol collected crumb rubber pellets that appear to have been washed out of the Trillium Park synthetic turf playing field perimeter and had them analyzed for lead at Total Safety/Maxxam Analytics Lab in Burnaby. The crumb rubber pellets tested positive for lead at 15.9 micrograms per gram. The lab report states that “When lead-containing coatings are disturbed… or otherwise abraded, lead dust, mist or fumes can be released into the… environment and be inhaled or ingested…”. The crumb rubber infill from VanTech, the oldest public synthetic turf playing field in Vancouver, was analyzed at Element Lab in Surrey, and measured 12 micrograms of lead, and the plastic turf blades measured even higher for lead at 24.3 micrograms per gram.

Caption for photos: Turf field have been multiplying around Vancouver, and the Park Board plans to install more. In the close-ups, the green bits around the drains are the plastic turf blades from a turf field, while black bits are the rubber infill. Tons of infill are added to fields annually to replenish what is depleted. Runoff ends up in the ocean, but Vancouver does not have an adequate filtration system for waste water.

In a letter to the Vancouver Park Board from Dr. Bruce Lanphear (Letter from Dr. B Lanphear to VPB April 2019a), a professor at SFU Health Sciences and clinician scientist at BC Children’s Hospital Research Institute, he urged the Park Board Commissioners to put a moratorium on artificial turf installation because “children are exposed to lead and other toxic chemicals in the rubber and plastic materials in artificial turf”. His research on the impacts of lead on children’s health led the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to declare, “There is no safe level of lead in children’s blood”. Lanphear states in his letter that despite 17% of the chemicals in crumb rubber classified as carcinogens by the US EPA, “there are no long-term studies to quantify the extent of children’s exposure to lead and other toxic chemicals found in synthetic turf playing fields.” The residents have learned that the California EPA is due to release this summer, results from a study of the chemicals in crumb rubber infill and the plastic turf and backing that will provide exposure information and a health impacts assessment.

Along with Nicol, another concerned City resident, Janet Brown, met with Park Board Commissioners John Irwin and Gwen Giesbrecht at Trillium Park recently, where the Commissioners seemed shocked to see the piles of crumb rubber pollution that had escaped beyond the fenced fields and appeared to have been washing into adjacent storm water drains. The residents’ hope is that Irwin and Giesbrecht will persuade the remaining five Commissioners to join them in rejecting further synthetic turf with toxic crumb rubber infill in Vancouver.

Nicol and Brown invited all Park Board Commissioners and staff to join them on-site at Trillium Park on June 6 to see the pollution firsthand and discuss the need for immediate remediation. For those unable to attend, sample water bottles containing deteriorating crumb rubber pellets from these fields were gifted to their Park Board desks along with a question about how the Park Board proposes to safely dispose of that pollution cocktail. “The Park Board needs to put a stop to the madness of exposing children to lead and other toxic chemicals in synthetic turf and take immediate action to remediate the pollution at Trillium Park, VanTech school, and other public sport fields in this city”, said Nicol. He went on to say that “Adding more weekly soccer hours is not worth the costs of poisoning children, and polluting our streams, ocean and earth.”

In his letter to the Park Board, Dr. Lanphear wrote: “We used to think low level exposures to toxic chemical were too low to cause harm, but that is misleading . We described the impact of low-level exposures in the video, The Impact of Toxic Chemicals on the Developing Brain: www.littlethingsmatter.ca.”

The residents say that they and many Vancouverites would like to see a vision for the City where organized sports and organic outdoor play happen on grass playing fields that are accessible to all, do not pose a risk to the long-term health of players and waterways, and that preserve ecosystem and climate-regulating benefits. They want to see a moratorium on all synthetic turf installations until a remediation and risk mitigation plan is implemented, and ultimately, see a greener solution created through collaborative planning with the communities.

Despite admitting the complete lack of long-term exposure studies of synthetic turf, Dr. Patricia Daly, Chief Medical Officer for Vancouver Coastal Health concluded in a letter to the Board in 2016, that “serious health risks, including cancer, are not increased”, essentially that synthetic turf fields are no risk to the public. In Canada, lead in interior paint was banned in 1960 and banned in gasoline, in 1990. Low levels of lead affect IQ, ability to pay attention and academic achievement.

The Park Board has installed 13 synthetic turf fields to date, is planning another at Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, and is still looking to install them at Clinton Park and Beaconsfield Park, plus four more synthetic turf fields somewhere in the city by 2022.

Excerpts: Vancouver’s housing strategy is based on population growth targets that are much higher than projections that census data would justify. City policies, programs and budget are based on faulty underlying assumptions. These unit projections were high even during the housing market expansion and do not reflect the current market correction. The housing strategy needs to be reconsidered.

… Even the city admits that we can’t build our way to affordability, but their policies intended to address the issues are only making things much worse. The current rental incentive programs are a case in point.

…. It is precisely this demolition of existing, more affordable rental buildings in commercial arterial districts that Coun. Jean Swanson’s motion going to council on June 12 is intended to address.

OPINION: The current Vision agenda needs to change if we are to have an affordable sustainable future for the people who live and work here in Vancouver.

Vancouver Sun

By Elizabeth Murphy

June 7, 2019 online, Print edition June 8, 2019 page H2

Vancouver’s housing strategy is based on population growth targets that are much higher than projections that census data would justify. City policies, programs and budget are based on faulty underlying assumptions. These unit projections were high even during the housing market expansion and do not reflect the current market correction. The housing strategy needs to be reconsidered.

The former Vision council approved these directions before being tossed in October’s election. Yet the new council has approved the plans and policies set in place, including the budget to implement them. Staff have been pushing through their agenda by guiding a mostly inexperienced council with advice that continues to be blindly followed.

An exception is Coun. Colleen Hardwick, who has been raising questions of staff at council meetings regarding the disconnect between unit targets and projected population growth.

The last census in 2016 showed a population increase for the city of about 28,000 people from 2011 to 2016 at a total of 631,500 people. Total private dwellings were 309,000 (including 25,500 unoccupied or occupied by temporary residents) with an average household size of 2.2 persons per unit. That averages 5600 people per year over one of the highest housing growth periods in Vancouver’s history.

Even if the population growth continued at this pace for the next 10 years it would only mean 56,000 more people. At 2.2 persons per unit that should be 26,000 more units.

However, the city’s targets for the next 10-year period is for 72,000 more units. That is more units than the 56,000 new people, if increases kept up with recent growth trends and almost three times the number of units that would be reasonably justified by population projections.

So in summary, the city is targeting to add 72,000 more units from 2017 to 2027, while population projections only justify 26,000 units. Vancouver’s housing strategy is based on this fundamentally flawed assumption.

And further, even the recent census rates of growth may not be achievable given the current market correction. Many condo buildings are opting not to go forward for development so there is a downturn already underway.

Unit growth targets are being used to justify unsustainable growth that has created the affordability crisis we currently are experiencing. Since Vancouver is mostly built out, any new development will be demolishing existing buildings, often including older, more affordable housing that displaces current residents and is replaced with more expensive new developments.

The whole growth agenda is unsustainable from a social and environmental perspective, creating much waste and hardship. The shift in 2011 from the Livable Region Strategic Plan to the Regional Growth Strategy is proving to be the policy error it was expected to be. The city has been rapidly losing its existing, more affordable buildings with the demolition of older character and heritage buildings.

It is precisely this demolition of existing, more affordable rental buildings in commercial arterial districts that Coun. Jean Swanson’s motion going to council on June 12 is intended to address. The motion requests that C2 zones be required to have one-for-one replacement of existing rental units, like what is currently required in most apartment zones. Although not an outright moratorium on demolition, the policy has had a history of encouraging retention of older apartment buildings.

This is a step in the right direction but much more needs to be done to reconsider the current growth agenda.

Who is the endless quest for growth benefiting? Certainly not the people who live and work here.

Is a base economy that is so dependent on development and growth sustainable? Not unless the objective is to be a high-end resort city.

Even the city admits that we can’t build our way to affordability, but their policies intended to address the issues are only making things much worse. The current rental incentive programs are a case in point.

Rental 100 waives development fees intended for community amenities, waives parking requirements, and gives height and density bonuses as incentives to build unaffordable rentals that most locals cannot afford. It also has been inflating rents throughout the city.

A new pilot program is intended to replace Rental 100 program, with 20 projects that have yet to be approved, that gives much greater density bonuses for a small 20 per cent of moderately affordable units. But it still means that 80 per cent of the units are unaffordable market rentals while the scale of the buildings are creating unsustainable precedents.

For example, the former Denny’s site at Birch and Broadway was already upzoned to 16 storeys. Under the new pilot program it is proposed to go to an astonishing 28 storeys, with a floor space ratio of 10.5 in an area that is mostly low-rise buildings. This is getting back to the scale of the failed Short Term Incentives for Rentals (STIR) program that was cancelled because of the unsupported size the buildings tended to be.

Another proposal is at Alma and Broadway that was originally applied for as a six-storey rental building but has been increased by Wesgroup to a 14-storey, 5.8-FSR tower in West Point Grey at the boundary of Kitsilano as one of the new pilot projects. This would be a precedent for the area.

These kinds of projects increase development expectations all around the adjacent neighbourhoods. The next condo project will look at this scale as a new starting point once the precedent is made. It starts the process of speculation that will put other older buildings at risk.

Even before a Broadway subway to UBC has been approved, it is already being used to justify tower development that is not within the character of the neighbourhoods they land in.

Instead of massive density increases as incentives for rentals, there needs to be tax incentives that make building, buying and holding rentals more economically feasible. Additional options also include co-op and social housing programs that all require involvement of the federal and provincial governments. The city can’t do it all on their own.

These out-of-scale developments are unnecessary to meet future growth. There are plenty of existing major project sites across the city, either already approved or in process. There is enormous existing zoned capacity that would only require a fraction to be developed to meet census growth projections.

As Councillor Hardwick keeps saying, we need to “press pause” to re-evaluate growth expectations and the plans, policies and budgets that follow for implementation. The current Vision agenda needs to change if we are to have an affordable sustainable future for the people who live and work here in Vancouver.

Elizabeth Murphy is a private-sector project manager and was formerly a property development officer for the City of Vancouver’s housing and properties department and for B.C. Housing. info@elizabethmurphy.ca

]]>https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2019/06/10/opinion-vancouver-growth-targets-murphy/feed/2urbaniztaElizabethMurphyResidents in support of neighbourhood and outdoor pools plan rally June 10 in front of City Hallhttps://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2019/06/10/rally-in-support-of-neighbourhood-pools/
https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2019/06/10/rally-in-support-of-neighbourhood-pools/#commentsMon, 10 Jun 2019 17:08:23 +0000http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/?p=55326Notice received:

Rally outside Vancouver City Hallin support of neighbourhood and outdoor pools
June 10, 2019 (Monday)5:15 to 6 pm

Despite over 5000 combined signatures collected by the Templeton and Lord Byng Community to keep the Neighbourhood Pools open, VanSplash in their November, 2017, the final draft strategy, Park Board staff recommended “Moving away from a predominantly neighbourhood scale pool system and deliver a greater diversity of swimming experiences at larger community and destination scale facilities.”

Templeton and Lord Byng residents would like to see more neighbourhood scale pools being built, upgraded and renovated. The ability to walk or bike to a local pool supports the City’s Climate Emergency Plan to move away from motorized transportation thus reducing carbon emissions.

Residents from the Templeton and Lord Byng communities support the Park Board Commissioner’s amendments

to develop an upgrade and renovation plan, extending operational life-span for neighbourhood pools not undergoing renewal as part of this strategy, to increase sustainability and operational efficiency including consideration of implementing green technologies

to support a balanced delivery model that includes neighbourhood scale pools as well as larger community and destination scale facilities to deliver a greater diversity of aquatic experiences.

They will be holding a rally outside of City Hall Monday, June 10th, 2019, from 5:15 – 6:00 in support of this recommendation and broader community support is welcomed.

Mount Pleasant outdoor pool

Supporters of a new outdoor replacement pool in Mount Pleasant will also join them. [The rally is also in support of outdoor pools, including the long overdue promise to replace Mount Pleasant Outdoor swimming pool.]

Due to community push back of the proposed closures of community pools, anadvisory group was established to provide insights and advice to Park Board staff. Based in part on the advisory group’s input, Park Board staff will revise the VanSplash strategy and bring it to the Board in the fall of 2019 for decision. The final decision-makers are the Park Board Commissioners.The VanSplash Advisory Group is meeting June 10th and 12th to decide on their recommendations to the Park Board.

Your opinion is welcome and encouraged. The VanSplash staff will update the strategy to present to the Park Board Commissioners by fall, 2019. Please send in your comments before this time.

There is NO replacement outdoor pool in Mount Pleasant Park (Ontario & 16th Ave) for the one demolished in 2009, despite the recommendation in the 2010 Master Plan that a replacement pool would be built “when funds become available”:

The only recommended outdoor pool is to “co-located” with either the existing indoor pool at Killarney, or the future new community centre at Marpole. While many residents of Marpole would welcome a replacement for the outdoor pool that closed in 1996, there is no guarantee that it would accommodate swimmers of all ages, unlike the small outdoor one at Hillcrest which is suitable only for young children.
The report, by the same consultants for the 2001 report recommending closing outdoor pools, also recommends building destination pools at Britannia (already in the planning stages) and Connaught Park next to Kitsilano Community Centre, at a cost of $60 to $80 million for each. In contrast, the figure given for an outdoor pool at Killarney or Marpole is $6 to $9 million, and there is no outdoor pool included at Britannia or Connaught. The Park Board will consider the futures of Lord Byng and Templeton pools once the two destination pools are built, which could lead to their closure.
One reason given in the report for NOT swimming is that there is no pool close to where people live or work, yet the recommendation to shrink the number of pools in favour of destination pools makes this situation worse.

Shouldn’t the Park Board promote life-long access to all of the residents of Vancouver?

As a free public service CityHallWatch takes a separate monthly snapshot of the Rezoning Applications and Development Applications listed on the City of Vancouver website. The rezoning list contains valuable information on each application, and indicates scheduled “open houses” and Public Hearings. The development list shows applications currently in progress as well as upcoming Development Permit Board meetings. Spread the word to anyone who might be affected or interested.

Development Application Information Web Page

Welcome! The City is committed to making sure neighbours of development proposals are as informed as possible about proposed developments and that they have opportunities to provide input. This new method serves to notify people about development applications, in a way that is more sustainable and cost-effective.

Development Permit application information is listed below by address. Simply search for the application you are interested in and click on the link for more information.

As a free public service CityHallWatch takes a monthly snapshot of the Rezoning Applications listed on the City of Vancouver website. The list contains valuable information on each application, and indicates scheduled “open houses” and Public Hearings. Spread the word to anyone who might be affected or interested.